NSW basically did a fake lockdown and took their sweet time in even getting to that point. Other states like Victoria and South Australia have locked down quick, hard, and within two weeks effectively eliminated community transmission.
When you push the 'brakes' on the an electric (or even hybrid) you simply engage the electric motor. There is a limit to how strong this form of braking can be so in certain cases you will need emergency brakes (disks or otherwise). So the brakes on an electric vehicle would be very different. I would guess in the future they wont even exist. It will just be the motors. Motors to wheels so no drive train either.
I don't see friction brakes going away, even if it's just as as emergency backup stopping power (in the same way current friction brakes are on split hydraulic circuits for safety). I could see them being constructed differently to accommodate the fact EVs don't need friction brakes very often. A good example is VW's MEB platform uses rear drum brakes for cost and maintenance reasons. Rear brakes do very little of the actual braking, and drums are perfectly capable of stopping a car, they just suffer more fade after repeated use than discs. Since EVs don't really need to repeatedly stop with friction drums make a lot of sense.
If by 'Motors to wheels' you mean hub motors, I don't see those being a thing. That's a huge amount of unsprung mass (which affects handling and ride comfort more than 10x sprung mass). Broken wheels are also already massively expensive and increasingly common due to poorly maintained roads and automakers obsession with giant wheels and no tire sidewall. Having to replace a motor along with a wheel would be awful.
I do think we'll see plenty of one motor per wheel designs. Rivian has the pattern I think will be common: motors inboard and use small axles and CV joints. Not a very expensive setup and way fewer downsides than hub motors.
Current 4x4 designs with transfer cases, locking differentials and long, heavy driveshafts will certainly be going away. Jeep's 4xe PHEV Wranger has comically awful consumption since it retains the exact same driveline as any other Wrangler. The fact it's as aerodynamic as a brick doesn't help at highway speeds, but all the losses through the mechanical couplings hurts all the time.
Sounds to me like the brakes would be exactly the same. The wheel is connected to an axle and has a brake disc. The fact that the axle can slow the car isn't any different than exhaust braking, for example.
In case you're thinking the hydraulics would have to account for regen braking, I'm not so sure that's true. In my Tesla the brake pedal only controls the brakes. Regen braking is done by letting off the accelerator.
You can't always use regen either btw even if it was powerful enough. If the battery is too cold or is fully charged it can't be used much if at all—that energy has to go somewhere.
We're seeing lots of competing ideas about regen braking interfaces and I'm curious which will win.
Tesla is riding hard for brake pedal == friction braking, which is certainly conceptually simple. Lift off accelerator and you get regen braking. Press brake and you get friction braking. Tesla did take away the options about regen strength (at least on my model 3) and now it's only highest. I bought my tesla this winter and it was extremely noticeable how much regen was affected by a cold battery. I had to be very careful not to assume too much regen and after a whole spring/summer/fall cycle of consistency I'm slightly worried about being too one pedal complacent.
Hyundai/Kia has repurposed steering wheel paddles to add or remove regen strength on the fly and now ionic 5 will dynamically adjust the regen using the front facing cameras to slow you down as smoothly as possible.
Most of the euro brands are all embracing D/B modes on the shifter, with D being limited or no regen and B turning it on (and often with strength settings from there).
Porsche has gone full blend, with the ability to freewheel the rear axle and only the brake pedal being used to slow down. The first amount of travel is regen only, then they slowly blend in friction brakes.
I'm sure there are other patterns out there. It's been a long time since something so fundamental to driving has been open for new concepts, so it'll be interesting to see what wins.
Yeah I've had my Tesla for a couple of years in California and even in our mild weather the seasonal differences in one pedal driving are something you have to pay attention to.
I haven't tried the other methods, they sound worse to me but perhaps I'm just used to the Tesla approach.
In snow, if sliding starts due to braking, the best solution to regain control is to stop braking. Completely.
With manual transmission this is simple, deploy the clutch. With an classic automatic, no gas = mild drag due to engine.
But to add regen braking automatically, hmm. It means that in some circumstances, you have zero control, and the car is essentially actively working to mess up your day.
There are ways to detect slide, I wonder, does regen cease if slide is detected... just as with normal brakes and ABS studder (which doesn't reduce braking distance, but provides for steering when slide + braking)?
>In my Tesla the brake pedal only controls the brakes
Are you sure about that? I have a hybrid that has paddles to adjust the deceleration resulting from letting off the gas, but using that or the brake pedal I'm pretty certain uses the regen the same way. The only difference I think is when exactly the brake lights go on.
I'm surprised if EVs are different, because it kind of applies an arbitrary semantic distinction between gas and brake pedals.
If the brake pedal only applies the friction brakes, then does that mean that moderate to heavy regen braking doesn't make your brake lights go on? That seems like a questionable design.
Yes, the brake pedal only controls the friction brakes in Teslas. The brake lights come on when a certain amount of deceleration is achieved, not merely based on pressing the brake.
Once you stop thinking of the right pedal as 'gas' and start thinking of it as the 'accelerator' it makes perfect sense. You press down to accelerate, hold steady to maintain a speed (zero acceleration), and lift off to decelerate. The amount you press or lift off determines how much positive or negative acceleration you get. Then the brake is just there for a rare time regen isn't enough (and I go weeks without touching the brake).
Go look at a Tesla. The Brakes are the same as any other car. Regenerative braking kicks in first so you use it less, but it is all still there. It is exactly the same as a gas car: Same hydraulic system, same calipers, same pads, same rotors.
Depends on a bunch of things - how hard are you pressing on the brakes? above a certain threshold you're going to exceed the max current of the electrical subsystems and the traditional brakes will kick in (you don't WANT to hit that truck do you) - also once the battery is full the regen system has nowhere to dump that energy, my Prius behaves slightly differently as it switches over from regen braking once the battery is full.
Prius and other Toyota hybrids actually burn gasoline going downhill. Try it. Put B and go downhill and observe the consumption, the engine is on and burning gas.
I suffered some mental issues that began in 2012 and peaked in February this year. I _knew_ I should go and see a doctor but always because of my "intelligence" convinced myself that I needed to get my diet in order first, or meditate consistently first, or exercise consistently first, or apply any number fixes that I knew could shift the needle of my condition.
It took someone saying 'this is bad, you should go to a doctor' for me to actually make that appointment and go through with it.
That has helped a lot. I wish I had done it 8 years ago.
> I don't quite get how the loss could have such an effect.
The main damage to the business was the revealing of the fraud and driving away the people who were going to buy it.
Nobody is going to stick around for years waiting for court proceedings to finish up to complete a purchase of a small business - they’ll just find something else.
All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.
All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.
The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."
It depends on how you want to read it. If you read it carefully, it says something like this:
The cars have hardware that Tesla believes will be sufficient for full self-driving. They're building a system that is designed to conduct trips without action by the person in the seat. There may be a time at which someone will be able to use those features without supervision. The software will be updated over the air.
That's probably not what most people expect, though.
There is hardware that could potentially be used for the car to drive itself. It might not be sufficient for safe unattended operation, but there is hardware that can steer the car and make it move.
They have a design for a system that could drive the car unattended. It could be a piece of paper that says "Requirements: car must drive itself" with a couple boxes and arrows, or it could be more elaborate.
They might deliver software that can be left unattended. Or they may not, who knows.
They can deliver updates over the air.
Is that what people expect? Probably not. Can you currently sit in a Tesla and go from A to B safely without paying attention to the car? No. Will they ever be able to deliver the experience that the average person expects after reading the second paragraph? Maybe, maybe not. Will it be reasonably safe to leave it to drive unattended? Who knows. Would the average person who paid for "full self driving" feel deceived if they never delivered that experience? Probably.
It's definitely been crafted to describe something that might potentially be delivered someday, yet leaving enough wiggle room to be able to say "we never said it could be left unattended and never promised we'd ever deliver something that could be" in court.
> Can you currently sit in a Tesla and go from A to B safely without paying attention to the car? No.
End of story, it doesn't have "full" self driving. They have not delivered on the promise. They may do so in the future but categorically have not done so yet.
They have delivered on the promise where the promise is in the fine print: the car is delivered with the hardware Tesla currently believes is required for Full Self Driving.
Until the software is up to the task, people who buy the FSD option get a bunch of convenience ADAS features like auto park, lane changes while on autopilot, taking exits or entry ramps while on auto pilot, navigating interchanges on autopilot, and stopping for traffic control.
The software currently delivers everything that the brochure says it can do, and Tesla is viably working towards the future product which can do the bits they want it to do, namely drive the car without supervision in most scenarios.
No you do not have the hardware required to win the F1. There is more to an F1 car than “engine” and “wheels”. The specs you have to conform to are a rule book several pages longer than any nation’s Design Rules for passenger vehicles.
As for winning the F1 Grand Prix, you have a lifetime of experience in race driving to acquire before you are even going to be crossing the finish line before the race is over.
Please do not engage in such absurd reductionism, that kind of comment is what I would expect to see in /r/selfdrivingcars or /r/cars from the rabid Tesla-haters.
You're adding a ton of words there in your reading that massively changes what they're saying.
> All new Tesla cars have the hardware needed in the future for full self-driving in almost all circumstances. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.
They're not saying it is potentially designed or that they believe it has the capabilities to do the things they say it can do in their second paragraph. No where in their writing are the words "believe" or "probably" or "maybe". It states the cars are designed with all the hardware needed. Not that they might have all the hardware needed, or that Tesla believes it has all the hardware needed, but that these cars physically can do the job today, they just haven't been showing reliability and getting regulatory approval.
> The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience...
Many people would interpret that as "we are going to ship these features when they are going to be reliable, and we are going to keep on working on them until they are" but it actually means "if we manage to make them reliable, then they'll be usable without supervision, but we might not do so, so you might have to supervise the thing forever."
It has the hardware that is needed for full self driving (but that might require active supervision). It is designed to not require action by the person in the driver's seat (but is supervision really an action?).
People don't talk this way with one another, but that's how corporations talk. Comcast may say "200 megabits* (*where technology allows)" which means that one might get 200 megabits, or one might not and they have enough fine print to make sure that they can get away with it. Some VP might say "we'll never sell your personal information" and then a few years later it turns out that they do sell your personal information, because it's allowed in the fine print, the VP isn't with them anymore, the product has been renamed from Foo to Foo+, and clearly the VP was referring to Foo, not Foo+. Assume positive intent with people; for corporations, assume the shrewdest intent that the legal team will argue for if they were to be in court.
Now back to Tesla, maybe they will ship FSD, with no supervision required, and people will be able to watch Netflix while commuting to work. Maybe they won't. It'd be pretty cool if they did ship it. They have enough wiggle room in the feature description to not have to ship it, that's all.
The word hardware does a lot of work here for them. Technically the car has the hardware required for the features described, that does not mean it has the software yet, in fact the software demonstrably is not there yet and that is why the word hardware is in there. The implication is they can be upgraded to FSD in future with a software update.
At least Tesla doesn't try to restrict you from filming videos of it's driving system. Waymo will ban you from their system if you film videos of it driving.
What's promised in that paragraph as a whole is stress free leaving the car to do its thing, even when you're not in it.
What is in the videos on youtube is the driver needing to be hypervigilant to prevent it hitting curbs, waiting behind parked cars and driving off the road down light rail tracks.
>What is in the videos on youtube is the driver needing to be hypervigilant to prevent it hitting curbs, waiting behind parked cars and driving off the road down light rail tracks
So? Its a mistake, tesla didn't promise it can cover all situation nor won't make a mistake.
> All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.
> Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed.
Sure seems to me having to be hyper-vigilant to prevent it from driving down some lightrail tracks or getting it going after it decides to wait behind a parked car is more than "All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go."
>All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.
Its a promise about the future. Read the last paragraph:
>The future use of these features without supervision is dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving capabilities are introduced, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates."
Beside, from the video, I don't see the need to be "hyper-vigilant", yes you do need to pay attention, which is recommend by tesla, but far from being hyper-vigilant.
It's possible, but your scale is severely limited as you have to actively moderate your site. You also have to build a culture where users value their position in the community and fear losing access to it for doing the wrong thing.
Websites/forums exist in countries without an s230 equivalent.
In the US, the States are explicitly prohibited from closing their borders as a matter of Constitutional law. For different reasons, neither the States nor the Federal government are allowed to prohibit free travel between the States. This has been to the Supreme Court many times, it is mostly settled law at this point.
The right to travel within the US, like free speech, is near absolute. The due process hurdles to temporarily remove that right from an individual are very high; you can't do it with an edict nor de facto travel restrictions by abusing regulatory power (which has also been tested in the US Supreme Court).
Australia has significantly weaker individual freedoms than the US. This is one of those cases where those differences become apparent. Everyone asserting that the US should restrict travel like everyone else is ignoring that it is expressly illegal for the government to mandate such at thing in the US. No one in the US government is interested in dealing with the backlash such an attempt would elicit.
No, that is selective quoting of case law in support of a narrative. There are significant due process hurdles and evidentiary standards of "threat to public safety" in this same case law that are ignored here because they are inconvenient to the argument but nonetheless part of that same judicial precedent.
A thorough reading of that case law makes it plain that the proposals with respect to COVID would never pass judicial muster. In fact, there is considerable case law where attempts at such prohibitions were rejected outright but little curiosity in the above link as to the conditions and circumstances that caused the courts to throw them out.
The government knows that the courts won't allow them to cherrypick and selectively quote case law. It isn't an accident that every State in the US, across the entire political spectrum, came to the same policy conclusion regarding freedom of travel.
I dunno dude, the guy is a law professor. Do you have something more compelling for me to read instead? No insult to you but right now I'm running in to the 'guy on the internet has opinions problem' I hope you'll understand.
This guy from Yale thinks the same as the first one I linked:
Even if we assume you are right, how do you think this would work out in practice? Many police in the US won't even enforce mask mandates, you think they'll enforce travel restrictions on literally thousands of state border crossings? Most of these border crossings barely even have a sign indicating them.
GTK, I didn’t appreciate the level of independence possessed by the Australian states. Unsure of how AUS states locked down - nonetheless, getting six states to agree on something is easier than 50. Point stands that the US could not lock down travel between the states, and it would be impossible to get the states to agree on mutual border closures.
The states didn't agree on anything - when a state had an outbreak other states independently chose to close the border to them and administered border passes until the outbreak subsided.
I literally came here to comment that the very first bug I had to chase down in a production system in my first job was caused by this! There was a 'fuzzy' search field available to users and when one input a client's ID number (formatted as NNNNNNN) it was showing results for a different client because NNNNNNN was also the format of the unique ID for records in the database.
